Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Ashfaqbs/software-dev-ai-claude-toolkitWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/ashfaqbs/software-dev-ai-claude-toolkit/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ashfaqbs/software-dev-ai-claude-toolkit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ashfaqbs/software-dev-ai-claude-toolkit/code-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ashfaqbs/software-dev-ai-claude-toolkit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ashfaqbs/software-dev-ai-claude-toolkit/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00010 | $0.00328 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00131 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00066 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00033 |
Grade A, and why
code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Code Review
Review all uncommitted changes in this project.
Process
- Run
git diffto see all staged and unstaged changes. - Run
git diff --cachedto see staged changes specifically.
Check For
Security
- Hardcoded secrets, API keys, passwords, tokens
- SQL injection (raw queries without parameterization)
- Missing input validation on user-facing endpoints
- Sensitive data in logs
- Missing auth/authorization checks
Code Quality
- Functions longer than 50 lines
- Deep nesting (> 3 levels)
- Mutable shared state
- Missing error handling
- Copy-pasted / duplicated logic
- Dead code or unused imports
Testing
- Are new code paths covered by tests?
- Are edge cases tested?
Stack-Specific
- Java: proper use of Optional, records, @Transactional scope, resource cleanup
- Python: type hints present, async/sync consistency, Pydantic models for I/O
- JS: no
var, noany, noconsole.log, proper error boundaries in React
Output
Provide a summary with severity levels:
- CRITICAL: Must fix before merge (security, data loss)
- WARNING: Should fix (code quality, performance)
- SUGGESTION: Nice to have (style, readability)
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 46 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 2ed450f04dd3
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository Ashfaqbs/software-dev-ai-claude-toolkit (27 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 328 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
checkpoint
Scope-dialed fit-and-intent checkpoint — "does this serve the point + cohere + what did I learn?" at diff / module / corpus zoom. Auto-detects scope (+ --scope override); diff scope composes /code-review + a fit-pass; batches findings and routes them.
extract-conventions
Observe a scope's dominant code conventions and write a project-tier conventions.md that overrides universal defaults for that scope — hybrid deterministic+model detection, per-category propose-confirm, language-pro-delegated authoring.
pr-review
Review a GitHub Pull Request — fetch diff via gh, analyze for correctness/bugs, design/patterns, PR hygiene, and security. Present structured findings locally. No GitHub posting.
review
Audit code in scope against architectural rules. Report drift findings with propose-confirm-commit per fix and a feedback loop to improve the rule corpus.
pr-triage
Triage a PR's unresolved review comments into a checklist, then walk each to one of three outcomes — Act (route the code change to /dispatch or /orchestrate), Skip/defer, or Note (capture a decision for the reply you'll write). Never drafts or posts replies.
visualise-codemap
Render Mermaid diagrams (L1 module map, L2 file graphs, L3 export index) from .claude/codemap.md to .claude/codemap.diagrams.md and the Obsidian vault.